Just FYI: "On March 29, 1930, the Longview Bridge (later renamed Lewis and Clark Bridge) opens. The bridge crosses the Columbia River between Longview (Cowlitz County) and Rainier, Oregon. It is a cantilever bridge, at the time the longest and highest in the country. It is 8,192 feet long, including approaches. The roadway spans the river 210 feet above the water, and the top steel spans it at 340 feet. The designers claim that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, can pass under it."

Just FYI: "On March 29, 1930, the Longview Bridge (later renamed Lewis and Clark Bridge) opens. The bridge crosses the Columbia River between Longview (Cowlitz County) and Rainier, Oregon. It is a cantilever bridge, at the time the longest and highest in the country. It is 8,192 feet long, including approaches. The roadway spans the river 210 feet above the water, and the top steel spans it at 340 feet. The designers claim that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, can pass under it."

2. Those who feel it's ok to exploit every loophole in the game as long as "victory" is achieved and screw your opponent's feelings.

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.

Are you planning to continue playing this game? If not, please PM me and/or ask for a replacement player. This is such an unique situation for an Allied player, that I think somebody would like to see how it plays out. Maybe start an AAR to give brief updates on what happens as you go forward. Good luck and happy hunting!!

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

I think the "loophole" is the automatic destruction of hundreds of ships that haven't even been constructed yet, and won't be launched for 2 or 3 years in the future, even if the city is taken for a single day.

If the outcome of loosing Portland was that the shipyard was damaged or destroyed and had to be repaired, destroying or delaying ships under construction and potentially delaying future builds, I doubt anyone would be complaining.

Are you planning to continue playing this game? If not, please PM me and/or ask for a replacement player. This is such an unique situation for an Allied player, that I think somebody would like to see how it plays out. Maybe start an AAR to give brief updates on what happens as you go forward. Good luck and happy hunting!!

Just FYI: "On March 29, 1930, the Longview Bridge (later renamed Lewis and Clark Bridge) opens. The bridge crosses the Columbia River between Longview (Cowlitz County) and Rainier, Oregon. It is a cantilever bridge, at the time the longest and highest in the country. It is 8,192 feet long, including approaches. The roadway spans the river 210 feet above the water, and the top steel spans it at 340 feet. The designers claim that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, can pass under it."

I suspected this was the case, else the Kaiser shipyards could not have been where they were ... the ships produced had to be able to transit.

You drop the bridge into the river.

Yes, thank you. You had mentioned that. But of course that requires you have troops standing by to do and a plan and enough time. The OP had none of this ... so bridge was never blown. ;) Instead, the IJ do this on their way out, closing the Kaiser shipyards for the war, eliminating all of that production from the war effort. After the war, the resources are finally allocated, the river is finally cleared and made navigable again.

Well, I have to concede that a possible Japanese invasion of Portland, Oregon was realistic and historical as others have contended. I've been re-reading Parshall and Tully's "Shattered Sword" and I came across an exchange I've missed in the past:

Yamamoto: Genda, I want you to plan a one-regiment invasion of Portland, Oregon. Genda: Yes Admiral! But, may I ask why? Yamamoto: Because, Genda-san, if we seize the vital city of Portland, even for a SINGLE DAY, it will wreck American production for the remainder of the war! Genda: But Admiral, why would that be?? Yamamoto: Only the gods know Genda-san, only the gods know.

However, this plan was later shot down by the Imperial Army, who refused to provide the regiment on the grounds that this operation would be "chee-zee" and "gaim-eee" (Japanese words). They then compromised on Midway instead.

< Message edited by dwesolick -- 5/4/2018 2:18:44 PM >

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

Admiral King: We need to strip most of our search aircraft and garrison troops from the West Coast. President Roosevelt: Don't we need something for defense? King: Not really. The Line Islands and Noumea are far more important. Roosevelt: What if the worst should happen and they destroyed a Boeing factory or took out the Bremerton Naval Yard? King: Get it through your thick skull. My long-range offensive plans are more important than basic security of vital installations on the West Coast.

2. Those who feel it's ok to exploit every loophole in the game as long as "victory" is achieved and screw your opponent's feelings.

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

2. Those who feel it's ok to exploit every loophole in the game as long as "victory" is achieved and screw your opponent's feelings.

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I've done the Sea and Anchor detail to Portland (on a KNOX class frigate). I'd be interested in seeing a number of ships trying that - especially without good charts.

No problem! The Japanese transported their 10,000+ troops in open barges all the way from Japan, refuelling the barges from larger ships and dropping a tablecloth sack full of food and water to the troops each day. What more need they do?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

2. Those who feel it's ok to exploit every loophole in the game as long as "victory" is achieved and screw your opponent's feelings.

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.

How in the world is it invisible?

So you're telling me there is a visible construction ship yard full of ships in its cue on your map?

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

My stock map shows a size 70 Repair Shipyard at Portland. I think Hans' point is that it should be called a 'Construction' shipyard since it builds ships. However, no Allied port anywhere on the map has a 'construction' shipyard as far as I can see. It simply isn't modeled that way in the game. For the Allied side, a shipyard is a shipyard is a shipyard. They build and repair all forms of shipping.

To be fair, it's not that it's invisible, but more that it's different than how the Japan side is done. As Loka pointed out, the devs did not give the Allies a full production system on purpose, not by accident, so their ships are always "in production" from the code's POV, and thus destroyable. Those calling for a system whereby the long-range production be moved elsewhere, or restored to Portland itself, are asking for a huge can of theoretical worms. Moved where? Arguments ensue. Moved how many? Arguments ensue. If restored at Portland, by when? Arguments ensue. Not to mention a large new code base to be written, not only for Portland, but for every Allied base with ship production.

Ditto those who want rivers to be bridge-droppable or hulk-sinkable. Fine. Code that. There are navigable rivers in the pwhex, and non-navigable. Navigable, such as Rangoon, have tonnage limits imposed. Argue at their quantity if you like, but they're there. If you make it possible for me to sink a hulk in the Colombia River to protect Portland, you also make it possible for Japan to sink a hulk (sourced from where? Any limits on size there? Code that.) in the Irrawaddy so I can't land at Rangoon. And as an Allied veteran of half-a-dozen GCs, I would prefer 50x to be able to land at Rangoon than to have Japan not be able to land at Portland. And if you add bridges, I sure want the ability to CAS their butts out of existence, to stop supplies from flowing across rivers. Totally historic. Everybody good with that? Couple of thousand lines of code, but who cares?

It's a GAME of abstractions. I was playing a mind game yesterday while driving: what are the 20 biggest abstractions in AE? Not having bridges wasn't even in the top-20. People are bitching about a fully-preventable invasion of Portland, but have no problem with seven shiny, new Wildcats teleporting across 4000 miles of open ocean, arriving on an island ready to fly the next day, all because there were 20,000 points of corn flakes under a nearby tarp. Please.

And finally, putting on my schoolmarm suit, the game is finished. Done. Complete. It works like it works. Like it, don't like it, it doesn't matter. It's not going to change. So you either accept that and adapt, or you don't. Canoerebel did the best summary of the options open to the OP. That's just the way it is.

I've been playing this game system since 2005. A month ago I learned that I have been setting LRCAP incorrectly for 13 years. So it goes.

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

My stock map shows a size 70 Repair Shipyard at Portland. I think Hans' point is that it should be called a 'Construction' shipyard since it builds ships. However, no Allied port anywhere on the map has a 'construction' shipyard as far as I can see. It simply isn't modeled that way in the game. For the Allied side, a shipyard is a shipyard is a shipyard. They build and repair all forms of shipping.

But they all don't. There are yards that are repair only. It's just the way the design works. Japan and the Allies are presented differently.

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

My stock map shows a size 70 Repair Shipyard at Portland. I think Hans' point is that it should be called a 'Construction' shipyard since it builds ships. However, no Allied port anywhere on the map has a 'construction' shipyard as far as I can see. It simply isn't modeled that way in the game. For the Allied side, a shipyard is a shipyard is a shipyard. They build and repair all forms of shipping.

I think Hans just enjoys twisting JFB tails.

Close, my point is that there should be a Construction shipyard there in addition to the Repair shipyard.

The repair shipyard is accessible. The construction shipyard is not, but the cue of building ships can be examined.

That way the player has huge heads up of the presence of an asset that needs protecting.

ps. I won't deny the last accusation is often true, but it is not the source of my passion on this point.

2. Those who feel it's ok to exploit every loophole in the game as long as "victory" is achieved and screw your opponent's feelings.

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

The player in question failed to protect his rear areas, would not say this is a "loophole" Also he has now the chance to bag a bunch of enemy troops (depending how much the Japanese landed there), and sink a lot of ships in his own LOC.

Yes it can be discussed that cancelling of all ship buildings at a certain port might be "off" but both sides suffer from this.

The loophole is the complete lack of a construction shipyard to be protected or lost?

The allied player is expected to be aware of an invisible asset he can't afford to lose but cant see anything there that needs defending.

I seriously can't understand how the lot of you can't grasp this.

How in the world is it invisible?

So you're telling me there is a visible construction ship yard full of ships in its cue on your map?

Can I get a copy of that?

How bout this. IF there is an asterisk the ship appears there from somewhere else, if no asterisk, then the ship is built there. Am I wrong?

The asterik means it is an OFF MAP port where the ships arrive - these are eg. Aden for the British, these ships are probably build in the UK and are transfered from the ETO to the PTO. Same for the panama ports these ships are transfered from the east coast. If there is no "*" then the ships are build at the base in question. Just filter for the base eg. Portland and see what is build there.

How is this a "loophole" if there is a base on the map it can be invaded or taken by either side. Using this logic also the Allied invasion in 43 in the Kuriles would be a "loophole" cause it did not happen in real life?

I think the "loophole" is the automatic destruction of hundreds of ships that haven't even been constructed yet, and won't be launched for 2 or 3 years in the future, even if the city is taken for a single day.

Abstractions are necessary for the game to function.

That said, determined sappers can cause a LOT of havoc in a single day.

The ship availability interface is a report interface that is independent of the map.

It doesn't tell you ships are building at a given location it tells you the ARRIVE at that locations.

Yes, perhaps the asterisk does have the meaning Lowpe speculates, but like much of the appendage documentation where the heck is it ever explained.

So, yea, you've made the point that if a player goes digging deeply enough into the data base they CAN glean the fact the ships are being built at these shipyards that are invisible on the map.

However, none of that satisfies my point that a GRAPHIC ON THE MAP is what is needed to give the player a proper heads up regarding his assets and the need to protect them.

Its a huge design shortfall.

I'm a designer. Its what I do for a living. Trust me to know when a design falls short of the mark.

Hans, by your logic, everything is independent of the map. Everything non-map is somehow a strawman argument...

The map doesn't tell you whether or not your bombers at that base (which you may not be able to see if you have too many groups there, because the mouse-over on the map is limited) are at a large enough airfield to fly at their normal ranges/payloads. It doesn't tell you whether or not you have torpedoes. It doesn't tell you whether or not the airfield is overstacked.

The map doesn't tell you if your TFs have fuel.

The map doesn't tell you how far that CV TF that you detected can move and then strike at you.